Part 1

Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

THE

AMERICAN PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL

AND

MISCELLANY.

Vol. I. Philadelphia, May 1, 1839. No. 8.

ARTICLE I.

UTILITY OF PHRENOLOGY.

_Phrenology is useful, because it forms the most correct basis of a system of mental philosophy._

In a previous number of this Journal (see Art. I, page 161), we entered somewhat at length upon the discussion of the above proposition. We there contrasted the merits of phrenology, as the _true science of the mind_, with other systems of mental philosophy, particularly Dugald Stewart’s. We pointed out several important defects which have hitherto existed in every system of mental science. We stated that all writers on the philosophy of the mind had committed the following mistakes. First, _they leave out of view almost entirely all connection of the mind with the brain_; and, secondly, _they make their own individual consciousness the chief and principal source of information_. And that, from these two radical defects in their premises, they have fallen into numerous errors. Among others, _they do not recognise all the primitive faculties of the mind_; and throughout all their writings, _they confound primitive faculties of the mind with modes of activity_.

Another radical defect in the systems of previous writers on mental science is, _When they admit and treat of the elementary faculties of the mind, they consider them merely as existing by themselves, and disregard almost entirely the influence of combination_.

This defect is similar to what would appear in that system of chemistry which should contain only a physical description of elements of matter, without saying any thing of the various substances which they form in combination. Thus the chemist might describe oxygen by itself. He might say it is a gas, colourless, heavier than common air, a supporter of combustion and animal life, and many other things equally important, interesting, and true; and if such facts were all that is known of this substance, they should be received and appreciated according to their value. But how much is added to our knowledge, when we are informed that oxygen enters into combination with almost every other element of matter? That in one combination it forms the deadly poison; in another, the refreshing cordial. That united with nitrogen in one proportion, it constitutes the air we breathe; in another, it forms the nitrous oxyde, a substance producing the most remarkable effects of exhilaration; in a third proportion, the nitrous oxyde, which, coming in contact with our lungs, produces instant death; and in a fourth, one of the most powerful agents in nature. That with hydrogen it forms the valuable substance called water; and in other various combinations, acids so valuable in the arts and all the economy of civilised life.

Much likewise might be said, which would be interesting and true, of acids—of their general properties—their sour taste—their effects on vegetable blues, &c.; but how imperfect would be the description which should fail to give us not only the elements of which each is composed, but the nature of those substances which they form in compositions?

We have room only for a single example to illustrate the truth of our position. We select the mental power termed by Dr. Brown “_anger_;” in phrenology, “Combativeness.” In his description of this feeling, Dr. Brown is truly eloquent. His organ of Combativeness must have been large, or he could not have described the feeling with such vividness and accuracy.

“There is a principle in our mind,” says he, “which is to us like a constant protector; which may slumber, indeed, but which slumbers only at seasons when its vigilance would be useless; which awakes, therefore, at the first appearance of unjust intentions, and which becomes more watchful and more vigorous in proportion to the violence of the attack which it has to dread. What should we think of the providence of nature, if, when aggressions were made against the weak and unarmed, at a distance from the aid of others, there were instantly and uniformly, by the intervention of some wonder-working power, to rush into the hand of the defenceless a sword or other weapon of defence? And yet this would be but a feeble assistance, if compared with that which we receive from those simple emotions which Heaven has caused to rush, as it were, into our mind for repelling every attack. What would be a sword in the trembling hand of the infirm, of the aged—of him whose pusillanimous spirit shrinks at the very appearance not of danger merely, but even of arms by the use of which danger might be averted, and to whom, consequently, the very sword which he scarcely knew how to grasp would be an additional cause of terror? The _instant anger_ which arises, does more than many such weapons. It gives the spirit which knows how to make a weapon of every thing, or which itself without a weapon does what even a thunderbolt would be powerless to do in the shuddering grasp of a coward. When anger rises, fear is gone. There is no coward, for all are brave.”—_Brown’s Lects. Hedge’s ed._ vol. ii. p. 32.

This is a correct description, as far as it goes, of the feeling or emotion which may be termed _instant anger_, and which depends on Combativeness. But he confines himself to the simple emotion as it rises in view of provocation or insult, or any threatened injury. It is true he speaks of resentment being “too long protracted,” (which depends on Destructiveness, and this is another example of confounding primitive elements of the mind with each other,) and _disproportionate to the offence; transferred from the guilty to the innocent; rising too soon_, when it _should be entirely suppressed_; and as _not confined to the individual aggrieved_; but it is all in such a manner as to show conclusively that he thinks the subject exhausted with a description of what in common language is usually termed _anger_. But phrenology teaches that the element of the mind, which is at the foundation of anger, is “an active impulse exerting an influence on the mental constitution, independent of unjust attacks.” Dr. Brown has confined his description of the faculty to one mode of manifestation or activity, which is precisely analogous to the case we have supposed above from chemistry. But how imperfect is the description till we are told that this elementary feeling is the basis not only of _anger_ or _resentment_ at injury, but constitutes in every mind, according to its strength, the propensity to oppose; that it aids the good man to carry through his plans of benevolence, as well as the bad to execute his purposes of malice; that united with deficient intellect and weak moral sentiment, it makes the quarrelsome, vaunting boxer, while in a different combination it is an important element in the character of the unflinching philanthropist; that it not only gives boldness to the soldier on the field of battle, and fills with indignation the mind of an injured person, but imparts energy to the messenger of peace, and even enables gentle and virtuous woman better to fulfil the important duties of her station. We want to know what is that element of mind which is the _basis of anger_, and then the influence of this element in all its varieties of combination.

We are not aware that this representation is in the least open to the charge of exaggeration. Nor is the defect of which we speak confined to the system of Dr. Brown. It extends to all the systems of the old philosophers, and almost to every part of those systems; nor could their principles of investigation and the data they had at command, or which they would use, furnish any remedy. If they went to the extent of their powers or their data, we should not complain; and yet if there are additional helps or data, why should we not employ them?

There is one more topic connected with this part of the subject upon which we would remark, viz. the _nomenclature of phrenology_. We cannot better introduce what we have to say, than by quoting the language of Dr. Whately, published in the second number of this Journal, page 47.

“I am convinced that, even if all connection of the brain with the mind were regarded not merely as doubtful, but as a perfect chimera, still the treatises of many phrenological writers, especially yours,” (Mr. Combe’s,) “would be of great value, from their employing a metaphysical nomenclature far more accurate, logical, and convenient, than Locke, Stewart, and other writers of their schools.”

Higher authority on this subject than Dr. Whately could not be cited. But the testimony of many persons of high authority might be quoted. Even the opponents of phrenology will express their admiration of its classification and nomenclature; and that, too, while they profess entire unbelief in the truth of the system, not reflecting that this excellency is an important argument in favour of its truth. Simplicity and clearness are only attributes of _truth_; and the principle is without exception, that of two systems, that which is most simple and clear is most accordant with truth. Such ever has, and ever will be, the verdict of mankind.

Without claiming perfection for phrenology in regard to _classification_ and _nomenclature_, we think its advantages in this respect to mental science will be incalculable. Every writer on metaphysics usually tills some scores of pages on the importance of being precise in the use of language, and the danger of employing terms in a loose and careless manner; and no one who looks at the history of metaphysical science will consider such cautions as unnecessary. One half or three fourths of the controversies which have taken place in reference to the philosophy of the mind, have doubtless arisen from a misunderstanding of _terms_. This is true not only in regard to subjects purely metaphysical, but many controversial treatises on religious doctrines would never have been inflicted on the world, had the parties understood each other. We do not claim for a knowledge of phrenology the quality of a sovereign universal remedy for those evils. There are many subjects of controversy not directly connected with the science; and difference of opinion as often arises from difference of feeling as from difference in intellectual apprehension. Even phrenologists, equally well versed in the principles of their science, will sometimes have different views. But with them, controversies and discussions do not arise from a misunderstanding of language. Although there is still _terra incognita_ within the limits of the system, and many indefinite points, some of which probably never will be settled in our mortal state, yet the harmony of phrenologists on the science of the mind is scarcely surpassed by that of other philosophers on the science of matter; and even where only a partial acquaintance with the science is possessed, such is the clearness of its classification and the definitions of its terms, that misunderstanding in relation to subjects legitimately involving such language is almost necessarily excluded from minds of ordinary discipline and capacity.

We entirely accord with the opinion of Dr. Whately, that if the science were regarded “as a perfect chimera,” still the “employing a metaphysical nomenclature,” to which it has given rise, “would be of great value.”

ARTICLE II.

REMARKS UPON THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION.

We have waited with some little impatience for some time past, to see an article upon the philosophy of regeneration, based upon views in harmony with Scripture and the phrenological philosophy of the human mind. The third article in the first number of this Journal is very correct, as far as it goes, but cannot be considered as taking up the subject at the foundation. The truth is, the subject is one belonging to the clerical profession, and to some able divine who is heartily convinced of the truth of phrenology. To do justice to the subject, in all its length and breadth, its height and its depth, will require the hand of a master: and however well the work should be accomplished, it would be certain to meet with opposition from the ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry of some. This has doubtless been foreseen by those best qualified to enter upon the task, and the public mind has been left in the dark; and those who would seize a true mental philosophy as a pearl of great price, have been frightened from going out after it, because there was a “lion in their way.” But the subject cannot long remain in this state; things are coming to a crisis; the public will embrace phrenology, and trust to their own sagacity and comprehension to reconcile it with religious truth. If phrenologists and divines neglect to settle where the boundary lines are in the disputed territory, infidel trespassers will commit depredations. It is with a view to call attention to the subject rather than with any expectation of doing it justice, that we have resolved to prepare the present article.

That our readers may be emboldened to approach the subject, we beg of them to bear in mind that all truth, whether religious or scientific, historical or prophetical—whether rational or miraculous—when fully and rightly known and comprehended, must, from the nature of things, and the character of the Great Author of all truth, be consistent with itself.

Whenever, therefore, we see apparent inconsistency, we may rest assured we do not fully understand the whole truth; and that the reason is to be found either in our own ignorance, prejudice, or incapacity. There are indeed many truths wholly beyond human comprehension; and a miracle is nothing but a manifestation of power by the Almighty upon principles perfectly consistent with all his laws, but of which man, from his limited capacity, is unable to see the consistency.

We would never stifle enquiry short of the utmost limit of human capacity to pursue it; believing that when short and partial views of truth give wrong impressions, it is better to enlarge and perfect the view, so far as we are enabled to do, than to attempt to withdraw the mind, and suppress enquiry. This we think is especially correct in relation to all those truths which are so important to us, as are those which explain our character, condition, and future destiny.

Man is the only being on the face of the earth capable of being religious; or, in other words, he is the only being endowed with faculties whose functions are in relation to religious truths and to objects of religious worship. He is the only being whose faculties enable him to conceive of and worship the Author of his own existence. What a glorious distinction! and how little do most people seem to realise it! And on this glorious truth what additional light has been thrown by the discovery and analysis of the mental organs—by the demonstration that man possesses organs more numerous and of more exalted functions than belong to any other portion of his animal creation!

The faculties thus peculiar to man, and more especially connected with the religious character of man, are not, however, exclusively so. _They have another range of functional relation and action._ These two ranges of functional relation we will denominate, for the sake of perspicuity, the one _religious_ and the other _secular_. By way of indulging in range of expression, and using language acceptable to several classes of Christians, we may occasionally speak of the one as sanctified or evangelical, and the other worldly or temporal. The faculties which come under this class, are those termed by phrenologists the higher sentiments. They are more particularly those denominated Reverence, Hope, Marvellousness, Ideality, Benevolence, and Conscientiousness. Some of these are more particularly connected with the religious character than others. This is the case with the three first named. They seem to be the earliest, deepest, and most abundant fountains of religious feeling. The others fall into a course of religious manifestation, and give consistency of life and practical goodness to what would otherwise end in mere worship, faith, and expectation. When the character is thoroughly and consistently religious—when religious principle has become, like a piece of leaven, operative until it has leavened the whole—then, indeed, all the faculties may be said in some sort to manifest a religious function. It is then that the propensities act in subordination to, and in harmony with, the higher sentiments while those sentiments take a religious direction. The higher sentiments may predominate over the propensities in the ordinary life and conversation of the merely moral man. Such a man may be honest, benevolent, respectable, and upright, and have his propensities in subjection. He may not only be punctual in attendance on divine worship, and unite in the services with some degree of attention and feeling, but he may even erect the domestic altar, and worship morning and evening, (because all this may be true with an individual without a just charge of hypocrisy,) and yet the individual may have no prevailing, predominating, or _supreme_ love to God. This is the case with many persons who have been blessed with favourable organisations and education combined. _But this is not that kind of control of the higher sentiments which characterises the converted and thoroughly religious man._ A thoroughly religious man does all things as in the presence of God, and in obedience to his will; his thoughts are habitually upon divine things. _We do not say of such an individual, that he has any more or other faculties than the irreligious and profane individual._ Were it so, a religious man would be either something more than a man, or the irreligious would be something less. No, blessed be God, the vilest wretch that lives has all the primitive faculties necessary to enable him to feel and appreciate religious truth. We shall show by and by that what is called the new principle, which takes place, and which guides and animates the will of the religious man, is not a new faculty.

We have now, as we trust, explained satisfactorily, according to the phrenological philosophy of the mind, what the state of the religious and the moral or irreligious is. The difference between them is now very apparent. It is easily seen that this difference is very great. It is not a difference of being, or existence, or entity. It is not the difference between one that is active and one that is inactive. They are both progressive; they both use the same faculties. They are both travellers to eternity; but they go different roads. They follow the direction of different leaders; they think and talk of different subjects. They have different anticipations: one looks to a guide, and moves forward in the broad effulgent light of divine truth; the other endeavours to find his own way in the dark, and relies upon his own unaided sagacity. One looks forward to the end of the journey of life as the point whence open to his boundless view the glories of another and brighter world; the other feels himself at best but obliged to make a leap in the dark.

So recent is the science of phrenology, and so few are the religious minds who have thoroughly examined it in all its bearings, and more especially its religious bearings, that we feel constrained to detain our readers to explain some few of the laws which govern the functional activity of the faculties in general, and also to describe the functions of several of the faculties of the religious sentiments.

1. It is a law of the manifestation of the faculties in general, that the larger the organ the greater is its tendency to vigorous action under excitement, and the greater its tendency to spontaneity.

2. When the organs of the so called religious sentiments are large, other things being equal, they are most likely to manifest their peculiarly religious function.

3. The objects of religion are so much more elevated and vast than any of the objects of mere time and sense, that they give a much more intense and powerful excitement and exercise to the faculties, especially of persons of vigorous intellect and cultivated minds. The low, groveling, sensual, and ignorant, do not so easily realise things of a spiritual nature. Hence persons with large and active organs of the higher sentiments, especially of Reverence, Marvellousness, Hope, and Ideality, find no where but in religion full satisfaction to their aspirations. They seem, as Dr. Spurzheim once remarked of such an individual, “not made for this world.” The objects which engross the minds of the world around them, appear “poor, stale, and unprofitable.” They literally go through the world as pilgrims and strangers. In such, the Christian character is incomplete; they especially need benevolence to interest them in their fellow-mortals, and to exert their energies in the glorious employment of doing good.

Our attentive readers will at once anticipate the remark, that those persons who are not converted, in whom the organs of the higher sentiments are large, other things being equal, are more susceptible of religious impressions than those who have small organs of the higher sentiments and large propensities. Does not observation of facts go to prove its truth? and is it not at least tacitly admitted by many? Indeed, this great truth has been too little known and appreciated by religious teachers, and especially in the selection of mission stations. The organisations of the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands, and of some parts of Asia, are far more favourable to the reception of Christianity than are those of many other portions of the heathen world. But this is a subject to which we can only allude now; at some future day we hope to give it a full consideration.

We will add, for the benefit of those who have not made themselves acquainted with the leading principles of our science, that it is by means of intellectual organs that the affective faculties are all brought into relation with their objects. Hence they may be said to be in a measure the causes of excitement to such of the affective faculties, as are interested by the objects contemplated. The intellectual organs may be spontaneously active, and conjure up scenes which excite the feelings; or they may be acted upon by external objects or by other minds. We may therefore bring our feelings into a high state of excitement merely by the recollection of an exciting scene.

_Reverence._—It is not easy to give a brief analysis of this sentiment. We think, however, it is constituted to be excited to action by whatever is perceived by intellect, or believed by Marvellousness to possess the quality of greatness or superior power, whether physical, moral, or intellectual. Many of the objects of respect in society are conventional. The vast works of nature excite the feeling strongly; so also do the majestic works of art, as shown in the temples erected to the Most High. Who would not feel more reverence in going up to worship in a vast temple than when seated in a hovel? None better understood how to excite the feeling of reverence than the ancient Egyptians. In them, as also in the ancient Jews, the organ must have been exceedingly developed.